TSA Stole Your Stuff? Too Bad, Not Responsible!
Jun 21, 2011, 6:01 pm
#1
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
TSA Stole Your Stuff? Too Bad, Not Responsible!
Found this one while browsing today...
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/11D0606P.pdf
The decision is basically that under many state's laws, an employee who does something on his or her own that has nothing to do with his or her job does not create liability for his or her employers. Since "stealing" is not in the job description of a TSA screener, the case was dismissed.
I think the real problem here (besides the TSA sucking) is that the wrong charge was brought. The complaint should have argued that the TSA had a duty to secure the bags while in their possession and failed to do so, and/or that the TSA had a duty to supervise its employees and failed to do so.
Either way, this should put all potential plaintiffs and their lawyers who plan to hold the TSA responsible for broken/missing items on notice that the charges may have to be more creative than civil theft. The case does not state whether or not it was dismissed with prejudice, but I would have to assume that the court here would allow refiling of more appropriate charges. Hopefully they do so.
--Jon
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/11D0606P.pdf
The decision is basically that under many state's laws, an employee who does something on his or her own that has nothing to do with his or her job does not create liability for his or her employers. Since "stealing" is not in the job description of a TSA screener, the case was dismissed.
I think the real problem here (besides the TSA sucking) is that the wrong charge was brought. The complaint should have argued that the TSA had a duty to secure the bags while in their possession and failed to do so, and/or that the TSA had a duty to supervise its employees and failed to do so.
Either way, this should put all potential plaintiffs and their lawyers who plan to hold the TSA responsible for broken/missing items on notice that the charges may have to be more creative than civil theft. The case does not state whether or not it was dismissed with prejudice, but I would have to assume that the court here would allow refiling of more appropriate charges. Hopefully they do so.
--Jon
Jun 21, 2011, 7:48 pm
#2
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Would the bailment provisions apply? The luggage owner has in fact transferred custody to the TSA agent for the purpose of screening in order to gain admission to an aircraft for an express purpose. As the TSA will not allow passage without surrender for inspection, would that not make the TSA a bailee, for as long as is necessary to complete inpsection? TSA has repeatedly claimed that once the inspection commences a traveler cannot prematurely terminate the process, and therefore the TSA's position with respect to the property is superior to all others until that property is returned to the bailor (owner), at least until the TSA agent violates the bailment by stealing the luggage.
If a bailment is created, then the TSA agent must take reasonable care, to re-secure the property as it was tendered to them, and if s/he does not, then would not the TSA agent and its employer as respondeat superior be accountable for failure to re-secure/return the property under the terms of the bailment?
This approach does not accuse the TSA agent of theft, but rather a breach of duty as bailee unless the property is accounted for and returned, or in the alternative breach of duty by conversion of bailor's property. Not quite the same as theft. Any merit in this line of thinking?
If a bailment is created, then the TSA agent must take reasonable care, to re-secure the property as it was tendered to them, and if s/he does not, then would not the TSA agent and its employer as respondeat superior be accountable for failure to re-secure/return the property under the terms of the bailment?
This approach does not accuse the TSA agent of theft, but rather a breach of duty as bailee unless the property is accounted for and returned, or in the alternative breach of duty by conversion of bailor's property. Not quite the same as theft. Any merit in this line of thinking?
Jun 21, 2011, 10:04 pm
#3
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,782
One of the other claims against the TSA which happened at check point was based on bailment.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ing-rolex.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ing-rolex.html
Jun 22, 2011, 6:58 am
#4
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
I think the real problem here (besides the TSA sucking) is that the wrong charge was brought. The complaint should have argued that the TSA had a duty to secure the bags while in their possession and failed to do so, and/or that the TSA had a duty to supervise its employees and failed to do so.
Jun 22, 2011, 7:19 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,072
I agree. That's essentially the bailment argument. I think such a case might well survive a 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), but would be very hard to win. You indeed have to show that TSA was negligent in some way and that would be extremely hard: the fact that an employee stole something is far from sufficient.
I would want TSA to show me written policies and practices that are in place to monitor the employees actions while working the screening checkpoint.
Jun 22, 2011, 7:44 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
(Notwithstanding the simple fact that a "civilization" shouldn't be letting strangers grope their infants and elderly in the name of security theatre.)
Jun 22, 2011, 8:37 am
#7
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
And the latter is the issue here. What steps are reasonable for employers to take to protect customer's property? Let's look at a coat check room as an example, since that's also a place that has custody of customer property. What is the employer obligated to do? Must they establish a nuclear-like "no lone zone" around the check room so that no one employee can steal something? Must they establish video surveilance of the room? Etc.
Jun 22, 2011, 9:17 am
#8
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Not necessarily. Just like a restaurant would not necessarily be liable if one their servers copied your credit card number and sold it to somebody. It's the same with a surgical error that causes an injury. People make mistakes. People steal. Bad things happen and the mere fact that a bad thing happened isn't enough for a claim; you have to show negligence. In order to show that, you have to show more, that the entity you're suing has a duty to prevent the bad thing (not the issue here) and that the entity did not take reasonable steps to prevent the bad thing.
And the latter is the issue here. What steps are reasonable for employers to take to protect customer's property? Let's look at a coat check room as an example, since that's also a place that has custody of customer property. What is the employer obligated to do? Must they establish a nuclear-like "no lone zone" around the check room so that no one employee can steal something? Must they establish video surveilance of the room? Etc.
And the latter is the issue here. What steps are reasonable for employers to take to protect customer's property? Let's look at a coat check room as an example, since that's also a place that has custody of customer property. What is the employer obligated to do? Must they establish a nuclear-like "no lone zone" around the check room so that no one employee can steal something? Must they establish video surveilance of the room? Etc.
Jun 22, 2011, 11:10 am
#10
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14
Not necessarily. Just like a restaurant would not necessarily be liable if one their servers copied your credit card number and sold it to somebody. It's the same with a surgical error that causes an injury. People make mistakes. People steal. Bad things happen and the mere fact that a bad thing happened isn't enough for a claim; you have to show negligence. In order to show that, you have to show more, that the entity you're suing has a duty to prevent the bad thing (not the issue here) and that the entity did not take reasonable steps to prevent the bad thing.
Jun 22, 2011, 11:31 am
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
"Hey! Your camera recordings show this guy stealing my stuff!"
"Oh. Sorry. Our bad. We'll remove those cameras..."
The same problem is occurring at the TSA checkpoints now.
"Hey! These recordings show your personnel acting like buffoons!"
"Oh. Sorry. Our bad. We'll just prohibit photography or videography at the checkpoint..."
Jun 22, 2011, 11:52 am
#12
Join Date: Jan 2011
Programs: Sky Miles, Star Alliance, Marriott
Posts: 328
Not necessarily. Just like a restaurant would not necessarily be liable if one their servers copied your credit card number and sold it to somebody. It's the same with a surgical error that causes an injury. People make mistakes. People steal. Bad things happen and the mere fact that a bad thing happened isn't enough for a claim; you have to show negligence. In order to show that, you have to show more, that the entity you're suing has a duty to prevent the bad thing (not the issue here) and that the entity did not take reasonable steps to prevent the bad thing.
And the latter is the issue here. What steps are reasonable for employers to take to protect customer's property? Let's look at a coat check room as an example, since that's also a place that has custody of customer property. What is the employer obligated to do? Must they establish a nuclear-like "no lone zone" around the check room so that no one employee can steal something? Must they establish video surveilance of the room? Etc.
And the latter is the issue here. What steps are reasonable for employers to take to protect customer's property? Let's look at a coat check room as an example, since that's also a place that has custody of customer property. What is the employer obligated to do? Must they establish a nuclear-like "no lone zone" around the check room so that no one employee can steal something? Must they establish video surveilance of the room? Etc.
Jun 22, 2011, 11:59 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,072
Not necessarily. Just like a restaurant would not necessarily be liable if one their servers copied your credit card number and sold it to somebody. It's the same with a surgical error that causes an injury. People make mistakes. People steal. Bad things happen and the mere fact that a bad thing happened isn't enough for a claim; you have to show negligence. In order to show that, you have to show more, that the entity you're suing has a duty to prevent the bad thing (not the issue here) and that the entity did not take reasonable steps to prevent the bad thing.
And the latter is the issue here. What steps are reasonable for employers to take to protect customer's property? Let's look at a coat check room as an example, since that's also a place that has custody of customer property. What is the employer obligated to do? Must they establish a nuclear-like "no lone zone" around the check room so that no one employee can steal something? Must they establish video surveilance of the room? Etc.
And the latter is the issue here. What steps are reasonable for employers to take to protect customer's property? Let's look at a coat check room as an example, since that's also a place that has custody of customer property. What is the employer obligated to do? Must they establish a nuclear-like "no lone zone" around the check room so that no one employee can steal something? Must they establish video surveilance of the room? Etc.
I believe that government (TSA) has an absolute responsibility to put in place safeguards that make theft very difficult and I further believe this has not been done based on the number of reported thefts and identified thieves.
At the checkpoints I have been through the TSA Checkpoint manager is usually a short distance away from the actual screening lanes so the can have an overview of all screening activities but not enough for close watch of individual screeners. I don't know if these checkpoints have video cameras in operation but if not I would suggest that TSA is not taking reasonable steps to protect the property of travelers.
There have been to many issues with theft, both from checked baggage and carry on lanes, to believe that TSA has effective anti-theft policies in place.
